Tarun Agarwala - (1.) A tricky situation has arisen, namely, whether a case listed on the cause list, should be adjourned on account of an illness slip being sent by a counsel for a party, when, in fact, the said party is also being represented by another counsel, whose vakalatnama or instructions has not been withdrawn. This is a vexed question which has been troubling the Court for some time, but was being ignored because of social and other extenuating factors. But, now, the misuse of the illness slip has become rampant and now remedial measures are required to be introduced to curb this malpractice and revive the healthy traditions of the Court, which has been built over the last century. In the present scenario, and in the present working conditions of the Court and its dispensation of justice, the time has now come where the misuse of illness slip is required to be addressed by the Court itself. The Court cannot remain a silent spectator and allow this issue to be swept under the carpet.
(2.) ON 30th of January, 2009, an illness slip was sent by the learned counsel for the respondent. It appears that there was more than one counsel, appearing for the said respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the case should not be adjourned since another counsel was also appearing for the same respondent. This Court, while accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, none-the-less, adjourned the case and passed the following order : "An illness slip has been sent by one of the counsel for the respondents and therefore, the matter is passed over today. Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are several counsels appearing for the same respondent and therefore, the case should not be adjourned merely because one of the counsel has sent an illness slip. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. However, as per the tradition of this Court, a case gets adjourned whenever a counsel sends an illness slip, therefore, the tradition of the Court will not be broken today. However, the Court finds that the adjournment of a case on the ground of personal illness slip of an advocate is being misused which the Court cannot ignore. Consequently, if more than one counsel appears for the same party and one counsel sends an illness slip, the case should not be adjourned since another counsel is also representing the same party. Consequently, before any order is passed on this issue, it would be appropriate that all the counsels practising in the High Court are made aware of this order. Consequently, I direct the Registrar General of this Court to publish this order in the cause list for necessary information for all the advocates of the Court. The Registry is also directed to supply a copy of the order to the President and Secretary of the High Court Bar Association as well as to the President and Secretary of the Advocates Association intimating them that the aforesaid issue will be heard by the Court on 10.2.2009 and that if they so desire, or any other advocate may address the Court on the said issue. List this matter for further consideration on 10.2.2009. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing." The aforesaid order was printed in the Cause List, published by the High Court, on several days. Notices to the President and Secretary of the two Bar Associations were served, and, in pursuance thereof, Shri V. C. Mishra, President of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, Shri Daya Shanker Mishra, a member of the Bar Association and Shri A. B. Saran, Shri P. N. Saxena, Shri S. K. Verma, senior advocates appeared and addressed the Court and gave their suggestions. Shri Shambhoo Chopra, advocate was authorised by the Advocates' Association, and addressed the Court and gave his inputs and suggestions. Shri Y. K. Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner also addressed the issue on the misuse of the illness slip, at length. Shri V. K. Rai and Shri Ashish Srivastava, advocates also addressed the Court. Shri V. C. Mishra, the learned senior counsel and President of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association submitted that the tradition of the Court should not be broken and the acceptance of the illness slip by the Court which is going on for more than a century should not be abandoned at the instance of one aggrieved advocate. Further, the mere fact that certain advocates were misusing the traditions of the Court and were deliberately filing their illness slips, and thereby, scuttling the hearing of the case, should be ignored in the larger interest of maintaining the traditions of the Court. The learned counsel submitted that these advocates, who are misusing the illness slip, are the black sheep of the legal fraternity, and such acts should be condoned by the Court. The learned counsel submitted that on account of social factors and other extenuating circumstances, it becomes necessary for an advocate to send an illness slip, and therefore, the Court should honour the illness slip. The learned counsel fairly conceded that where illness slip was being misused, the Court should step in and punish those advocates, who misuse this facility, which has been followed over the last century.
(3.) SHRI Daya Shanker Mishra, the learned counsel submitted that the delay in the dispensation of justice, on account of illness slip being sent by advocates was miniscule, compared to the delay being caused by other factors. The learned counsel submitted that the delay in the disposal of the case, on account of the illness slip, was only 5%, and that the arrears and the pendency of the cases, which are mounting, was not on account of illness slip being sent by the advocates. Shri A. B. Saran, Shri P. N. Saxena and Shri S. K. Verma, the learned senior counsels of the Bar gave suggestions and submitted that in case an illness slip was sent by a particular counsel, the case may be adjourned on that date with an embargo that the same counsel would address the Court on the next date.;